Stuff

Ian Warren of Electiondata had published a new YouGov poll of Labour party members. Overall, it looks as if Jeremy Corbyn’s suppport among the Labour membership is down a bit since last year… but that right now he’d likely be re-elected again. To some degree a fall in support among existing members has probably been mitigated by the gradual churn in membership as pre-Corbyn membership falls and newer, more pro-Corbyn members join. Back in August 2016, 53% of paid up Labour members thought Jeremy Corbyn was doing well, 45% badly. The latest figures are 51% well, 47% badly. The figures are not directly comparable because of changing membership (a substantial proportion of members joined post EU referendum and they were some of the most pro-Corbyn members). Nevertheless, the net effect is that Corbyn’s support really hasn’t fallen much.

If we go back and look at Corbyn’s historical ratings among party members the big drop appears to be at the time of the EU referendum and the attempted coup, but since then things have steadied. In Nov 2015 66% of Labour members thought Corbyn was doing well, by May 2016 that had risen to 72%. Straight after the EU referendum and Hilary Benn’s sacking it it fell to 51%, in July 2016 it stood at 55%, by August 2016 it stood at 53%, today it is back to 51%. Some of those ups and downs are because the polls were seeking to measure those Labour members entitled to take part in the election and there were back and forths about cut-off dates, but you can see the broad trend – a sharp fall, then a pretty steady position.

Neither has there been much change in attitudes towards Corbyn’s future. Opinion has moved a little against Corbyn fighting the general election and in favour of an organised transition. 44% of Labour members now think Corbyn should contest the general election (down from 47% last August, but up from 41% in June 2016), 14% think he should stand down at some time before the election (up from 6% in August). The proportion of members backing his immediate ousting has actually fallen, now just 36% (from 39% in August 2016 and 44% in June 2016)

If there was an election now, 52% of Labour members say they would definitely or probably vote for Corbyn in a fresh leadership election, 46% said they would probably or definitely not. To put this in context, when YouGov asked the same question in June 2016 50% of Labour members said they would probably or definitely vote for Jeremy Corbyn, 47% said they would probably vote against him.

In the event the leadership election that followed was not a close thing. By July 57% of Labour members were saying they’d probably vote Corbyn (40% probably would not) and Corbyn’s lead among full party members ended up being 18 percentage points. Of course, it may be that the 2016 leadership election could have panned out differently with a different anti-Corbyn candidate or a different strategy, but comparing these figures to the polls before last year’s leadership election does not suggest there has been any sea-change in Labour members’ support for Jeremy Corbyn.

So what, if anything, would change the mind of Labour members? Ian’s poll asked if Corbyn should stand down in various circumstances. A substantial majority (68%) of Labour members said he should go if Labour lose the general election. A majority (55%) also said he should go if he loses the support of Trade Union leaders, and 50% said he should go if he loses the support of the shadow cabinet.

The problem is these are theoretical questions. In practice people tend to see events through the prism of their existing support, so Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters will tend to explain away negative events and blame then on other people (that’s not intended as a comment about Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters in particular, but on human nature in general. It happens in all other political parties too). There’s a lovely example of this in Ian’s poll – asked who or what was most responsible for losing the Copeland by-election, 85% of those Labour members who voted for Owen Smith said Jeremy Corbyn. Very few Labour voters who voted for Jeremy Corbyn last year put any blame on him though – among Corbyn’s 2016 voters the main causes of the Copeland defeat were seen as the media (46%) and Tony Blair’s speech (35%). Only 14% blamed Jeremy Corbyn. Don’t imagine that all those hundreds of thousands of members who have supported Jeremy Corbyn, who have been enthused by him and brought into the party by him will easily be disuaded from supporting him.

Getting rid of housing benefit for the under 21s will simply drive many to crime. Seems strange to me that now at 18 you only have partial adult rights – they might as well being back voting to age 21.

This Budget seems to have been a holding position before Brexit. The next Budget, now merged with the Autumn Statement, will be the ‘real’ one. By that time Brexit will have started and Hammond will take the necessary steps. For now he is keeping his powder dry – the bombshells on the British people will happen later.

@Sam’s lengthy post of the customs issues and threats of EU fines are important, in the context of Brexit.

Once we leave the EU, the management of our borders becomes very important if we want the U to accept open trade etc. The fact that custom controls are so weak in the UK will create significant problems in the negotiations I suspect.

All she has said is she wishes to get the best possible deal…given all the restrictions placed by the EU and by herself. She has promised nothing except to do her best, and even then only her best for her side of the 50/50 brexit split.

“I don’t understand why really. You might just as well say that it is in EU’s best interest to “antagonise” UK. I think neither is true. A “good strategy” will be sensible discussion to mutual benefit.”

May has two aims. The primary one is a continued conservative government. the secondary one is Uk national wellbeing. UK wellbeing is dispensible if it conflicts with rule 1. This is a case in point where Brexit is pretty universally agreed to cause an economic hit, but is nonethelss policy because of rule 1.

In order to satisfy rule 1 the Uk must leave the EU: if it fails to do so in some compromise, then the conservative’s strategy for capturing UKIP voters is liable to unravel. Therefore there can not be a compromise agreement. Therefore it is necessary to ensure no compromise is possible, though of course not appearing to do so.

For the politicians Brexit is not about economics. For voters, it is. The long term consequence is indeed likely to be the opposite of the expectations of Leave voters. Quite how that will play out electorally depends how it is managed, but always remembering 30% support is enough to become a government. The tyrany of FPTP.

Politicians of all parties start out believing that their party has the best approach values etc. for the country and to that extent a compromise hear and there that you think is not actually best for the country but keeps you in office is understandable.
The Cynical view, of course, is that power for powers sake takes over as politicians become more experienced.

Very negative reaction to the budget overnight from the normally friendly press. Not sure that this will be overly reflected by actual voters, but the mood music is negative, and it’s always risky to appear to alienate your base.

Two issues loom large in my mind on the budget details. Firstly, as I said yesterday, I simply don’t feel that the inflation forecast is remotely credible. The OBR thinks this will peak this year at 2.4%, but in February the new CPIH measure which will be used from April already stands at 2% (CPI 1.8% – not sure if the OBR projections uses the new measure or not) but with the inflation impacts of the devaluation only just starting to kick in, I simply cannot see inflation keeping to this target. I may be wrong, but I’ve tended to be less wrong than the OBR in recent years, who have rarely been right about any of their projections.

The inflation figure matters significantly, as this is going to define consumer spending, which in turn defines GDP growth. The BRC retail survey quarterly analysis shows that spending on non essential items has already fallen for the first time since 2011, and barclaycard data suggests household spending on essentials has jumped in value, both suggesting that food and fuel inflation is eating into discretionary spending. The OBR is assuming that households will borrow more to counter this, but will they? Again, if they have underestimated inflation, this could unravel quite quickly.

My guess is that inflation will move beyond this forecast pretty quickly, so I wouldn’t want to bank on 2% GDP growth this year.

My second budget observation is that while the NIC changes are grabbing the attention, the change to dividend taxation is way more painful for small business owners.

I understand the reasons behind the introduction of the new tax, and now Hammond’s cut in the allowance, but this is a single tax rule to cover all dividends – whether very wealthy savers with share portfolios, extremely highly paid CEO’s with share option packages, and micro owner managed businesses all lumped together under one tax system.

Putting aside whether the measure is fair and reasonable for a moment, among small businesses it is very unpopular. While there will undoubtedly be abuses, genuine cases are finding that their modest incomes from high risk new business ventures are now being subject to a significant increase in tax. If an owner manager draws a salary of £15,000 and then another £15,000 in dividends, then they face a tax increase of just under £1,000, after already paying 20% of company profits.

Under existing tax (assuming the owner draws out all the profits) the total current taxation raised from the company through NI, income and corporation tax is around £6,050, whereas once the new dividend tax threshold kicks in this will rise to around £7,050, a 16% increase in the total tax take from a very modest scale business and low to medium level earner.

My preference (vested interest alert!) would be for some manner of formula that distinguishes genuine small businesses from schemes to avoid tax. for example, I’m happy with the dividend tax for directors not employed by the company, as family businessesoften load the board with partners and relatives as a means to draw out tax free profit. In these examples, I would actually do away with the tax free dividend allowance altogether.

Where someone owns and works for a company, I think things are a bit different. Here I would think that something along the lines of balancing the level of salary against the dividend to ensure that people aren’t simply switching to dividend payments to avoid tax would be possible. Eg, limited tax free dividend to a proportion or fixed level of salaries etc. It could be done.

Overall, this is probably going to be a bigger issue than the NIC, and it is upsetting a lot of small and micro businesses. Politically, not sure of the impact, but I do wonder about the wisdom of initiating a major tax attack on the small business sector at this time, when we really need to encourage business development.

@Colin
“they are just a member of a family which is too big for the house they live in”

I recently discovered the official definition of overcrowding. A family of 4 in a one bedroom flat is not overcrowded if the children are same sex. One pair of people can live in the kitchen/living room and one pair in the bedroom. The rooms need to be big enough to accommodate a bed – not much more. They are allowed a separate bathroom and nobody needs to sleep in there, howvere a baby doesn’t qualify as a person until it turns 1 year old.

I believe-and certainly hop-that both PH & TM know how pressed most Public Services are by now.

But my impression of PH is that whilst we are still borrowing £50bn pa & with Debt pushing on towards £2 Trillion, he knows what can happen to both of these if another recession hits. The story of Public Borrowing after the 2007/8 recession effect is clear. And it is sobering to realise that the £50bn we are ” down to” is pretty much equal to annual interest payments. Payments being made in an era of Central Bank Monetary incontinence. If interest rates were at the “trend” much favoured by some-they would be doubled.

Spreadsheet Phil does not want to be dealing with that , when our Public Finances are so awful still

There must come a time , when the “proceeds of growth” ( to coin a phrase) must & will be shared with Public Services again. We are not quite there yet-whether the voters will wait depends entirely on the effectiveness of the Labour Party.

That’s interesting although not really definitive. I think the reaction to a budget is often driven by the media rather than the public.

I do wonder exactly what view the average UK resident takes of the self-employed, though. I suspect there is a lot of suspicion about small businessmen and the self-employed out there. Certainly in my line of work people have a pretty jaundiced view.

Anyone who has ever bought something in front of a self-employed or small business person and been asked “if you’re not using that receipt, can I have it?” will know what I mean…

It is as I descrbed it: A set of requirements at odds with those of the EU, coupled with a promise to get the best deal she can. Classic political speech of earnest endeavour to attain something known to be unattainable. It simultaneously expresses good will and determination but while defining the conditions which make agreement impossible. It is about spinning her image. All good politician in action, and no lies which is more than can be said about some of our recent history. But she is spinning the fact that her position cannot be reconciled with that of the EU and therfore ‘no deal’ is inevitable.

Just catching up on comments post budget and I fully agree with your comments on PH. He comes across as a very safe pair of hands and used to impress me when he was shadow chief secretary. No matter how he tried old Brillo could not fluster him. He was a shoe in for the proper job in 2010 under GO but unfortunately the LDs had to be accommodated.

The noise around th NI changes is just that, noise. When looked at in the round the overall change is negligible for all but a very few. It’s about fairness. I had to turn off the BBC interview with David Gaulk yesterday as a snarling Huw Edwards and his team spent the whole 20 minute interview flogging the issue, despite Gaulk, another cool cucumber and likely future Chancellor, having answered the question at the first attempt.

On voting intention, little effect I suspect. The choice is a stark one. Caution v. Profligacy. The latter is still too fresh in people’s minds, for them to fall for that one again, so soon.

Agree, the argument now is whether you will be better taking more salary than dividends but you will need to be pretty certain of your income before you risk this.

There is a loophole that needs closing, an accountant friend of mine says he gets a lot of people who register as self-employed, he prepares first accounts for them where it shows their income is as he alleges “deliberately very low” and they then use this to claim benefits. He has reported it as he knows it’s a widespread practice.

Hammond ridiculed them mercilessly & then he gets up & rambles on for ages , whilst everyone-including his own benches start playing with their mobile technology.

But when he isn’t talking about spending gazillions of pounds & nationalising everything in site, he has some very sound examples of inequality & unfairness. And he sounds earnest & genuine about them. Its just that he has no idea how to make a telling point across the despatch box-to embarass the Government with a manifest failure of equity. He can only do the honest handwringing catalogue of evils to the masses from his podium.

He needs some serious lessons in the use of a rapier, and they should take away his podium gear.

PH had two issues to deal with-Taxing something to fend of the Social Care calamity-and hanging on to as much of the favourable forecasting variances as possible. And he did both.

PH seems to be ultra careful and increasing Class 4 for the self employed will hit over paid media self employed much harder than those on £21,000 PA.
Support for the lower paid self employed with sickness benefits should be introduced to balance the small extra payment.
Interesting that 57% of the public support this move, yet the BBC and others have spent much time complaining.The should be required to declare a prejudicial interest.
When Government spending is back in balance then taxes need to be reduced for everyone.
No 18 year old should be encouraged to leave home if they are dependent on taxpayer support to pay their rent.
If they are being abused then funds for support should be made available after they report it to the police to be investigated.
The true budget will be the next one.

It assumes a hard Brexit followed by a UK-EU trade deal some time in the middle of the next decade. It’s interesting because the perspective is from outside the UK and EU, so cannot be easily written off as partisan. One key passage is:

“America’s significant commercial and financial
presence in the UK has been premised in large part on
UK membership in the European Union — the largest,
wealthiest and most important foreign market in the
world to U.S. companies. For decades, the UK has served
as a strategic gateway to the European Union for U.S.
firms and financial institutions. The primary motivation
of many U.S. companies to invest in the UK has not been
to serve only the UK market but to gain access to the much
bigger EU Single Market. Similarly, many U.S. banks and
financial institutions have relied on “passporting” via
London to access the Single Market. U.S. affiliates based
in the UK export more to the rest of Europe, in fact,
than U.S. affiliates based in China export to the rest
of the world.”

Also interesting is the vast US flow of FDI to Ireland – not much less than to the UK, and dwarfing Germany and France combined. I think there is a real danger that Ireland will replace the UK as America’s gateway to Europe. (Danger for the UK, that is: it could be a huge opportunity for Ireland.)

Looks like the Scotish Greens are going to do quite well in the Scottish local elections which might come in handy should the Unionist parties try another stitch up at preventing the SNP taking power in councils where they clearly won the most votes and seats.

On the indy front…It’s inevitable the Scots are heading for an Indyexit. The division and hostility between Scotland and Westminster has never been greater.

“I have some sympathy with you on Housing Benefit for the under 21s.
I think it has at its heart a feeling that the “family” has that responsibility. Unfortunately, today, the caring nuclear family does not exist for many youngsters-or they are just a member of a family which is too big for the house they live in”
__

I agree in part with you Colin but my concern is that many youngsters are going to be chucked out onto the street, especially those from poorer households who are already struggling. I really think the welfare reforms are political motivated.

I know there are some safety measures in place to ensure that the most vulnerable 17-21-year-olds do get access to housing benefit but for some poorer households tensions will rise over worsening financial matters and their kids can’t simply afford to move out.

First-time buyers are being priced out of the market and now some youngsters can’t even get into the rental sector.

Miserable Old Git will be perplexed, and some others I perhaps could mention, at the news that the Grumpy Old Men Party has been removed from the official list of political parties, maintained by the Electoral Commission.

Along with the Kitten Independence Party, and the British Unicorn Party.

“What does this mean in practice? As things stand, Britain is going to face prolonged austerity. This is austerity not in the political sense used to describe the tight fiscal policy adopted by the coalition government as Britain emerged from recession in 2010. It’s something more practical and immediately relevant to voters: sustained downward pressure on real incomes. And on the face of it, that gloomy scenario rests on assumptions that are still quite generous.”

….

“The net effect, according to the Resolution Foundation, a think tank that focuses on living standards, is that real earnings will be no higher in 2022 than they were in 2007, just before the onset of the financial crisis.

In the postwar era, that’s an unprecedented squeeze on real incomes. And none of this factors in a possible shock to growth if Brexit negotiations go badly. Even on moderately optimistic assumptions, the outlook for British living standards is terrifically depressing. And that’s no laughing matter.”

@DANNY ” her position cannot be reconciled with that of the EU and therefore ‘no deal’ is inevitable.””
The other day I bought some fish and chips.
My interest was primarily in eating them. The shopkeeper’s in selling them. I have a smaller interest in his staying in business, as he is local and easy to reach, but there are other suppliers.
His interest is in charging enough to make a profit to buy other things. Mine is in paying as little as possible consistent with a good product and my convenience. To that extent his interests and mine are irreconcilable, but we still do a deal.
Making a deal depends much more on complementary interests, than on similar ones.
Given the existing large scale trade with the EU, I would expect a deal to continue it to be possible, unless interfered with by ideology.

“I will try & be charitable and assume that the continuing struggle with our Deficit & ballooning Debt , plus the Brexit Agenda is crowding this sort of issue out at present.”

———-

It’s nice to be charitable, peeps are very kind to Corbyn innit.

If other things were crowding it out they might just leave it alone. But it takes time and effort into cutting stuff like HB etc….

One does enjoy the spin and its counters on budget day… on the self-employed, a post from the comments BTL in the Times…

“As a self-employed person I look forward to reading of the introduction of holiday pay, sick pay, maternity / paternity pay, unemployment benefits etc for the self-employed as part of the introduction of fairness into the system”

The Labour/Tory split looks a bit more plausible than some of the recent polls, but perhaps “plausible” just means “like in the old days”.

I am not so sure it signals a successful indy vote though. I suspect this is at the better end of MOE for Indy, with the relatively low Tory share in the VI. And we saw several pro-indy polls in the run up to the first indyref, only to find they were the high water mark of independence sentiment.

Sturgeon is indicating 2018 for indyref2 which is what I had always argued was most likely, as I think winning it after Brexit will be much, much harder than winning it before and arguing for continuing membership of the EU as a successor state.

I still think she will have her heart in her mouth though. To launch into an indyref2 campaign without a clear lead in the polls would be “Brave”, in Yes, Minister terms. And there is a great deal riding on it for the SNP.

Neil A – Couper shares your view about indyref#2 being before the 2019Brexit deal vote and you may well be right but the uncertainty around what deal may be in place and what right if any Scotland would have to stay in or join the EU (and on what terms) should they vote for independence seem to me to be major impediments.

The sort of Greek tutor who saw slavery teaching rich men’s cildrennas a career choice is better than starving in the gutter – unless another slave kills your owner, and you’re crucified same as the rest.

So, it knows be of depends. Except there are no rich slaves, only some are given better food and better accommodation. Slaves own nothing.

May has pushed Nicola into a corner she has given her absolutely zero. And now non-reserved EU areas are to revert to WM. As I said in an earlier post – devolution and Brexit don’t mix and therefore this is all or nothing for the Tories.

In the second indyref there will be no new powers for Holyrood. It’s ‘put up or shut up’. Scotland either becomes full partner in Brexit adventure or WM Tories will shrug and say ‘OK Scotland good luck managing on your own’

The worrying finding from the poll from an indy supporter POV. Is that 38% of people are 10/10 unionist against only 28% fully nationalist. So the indy vote is softer.

There was a recent BMG poll that was 49Y 51N so the poll is probably reasonably accurate. I would expect indy support to grow over the next year post-a50 trigger. All polls show Scotland is at least if not more pro-EU than at the EURef.

Ipsos MORI poll also asks ” If there is a second independence referendum and Scotland votes to become an independent country, which one of the following do you think should be the relationship between an independent Scotland and the European Union?”

48% – Scotland should be a full member of the European Union

27% – Scotland should have the full access to the European single market we have at the moment but not be a full member of the European Union

17% – Scotland should not be a member of the European Union nor have full access to the European single market